Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:32:17 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <v687i1$36o47$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me> <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me> <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me> <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me> <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org> <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me> <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me> <v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me> <v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me> <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org> <v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me> <f808427bbd01195fa8ff6793e98c2ca162ac98de@i2pn2.org> <v668tr$2pc84$3@dont-email.me> <32a0b6d30a6fd14b8558749c01badb0692661dcf@i2pn2.org> <v66gmq$2qr6f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 09:32:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="70c8d6b77d1510d9355906f09ac241dc";
	logging-data="3367047"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zab+FI0ofTEjM5UD8tJfm"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WvCgzE+EwojOPRpCw3YJeTkZr1A=
Bytes: 4943

On 2024-07-04 15:56:10 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/4/2024 10:07 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:43:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/4/2024 8:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>         int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>         int main()
>>>>>>>>>>         {
>>>>>>>>>>           return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does
>>>>>>>>>> not return.
>>>>>>>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same problem.
>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to
>>>>>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a H
>>>>>>>> *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated H is
>>>>>>>> only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not abort.
>>>>>>> HHH is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite
>>>>>>> execution. Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>>>>>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not
>>>>>> abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same
>>>>>> parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting.
>>>>> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees at
>>>>> least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner one. It
>>>>> is stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
>>>> Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort just
>>>> because that part isn’t simulated.
>>> Unless the outermost one aborts none of them do.
>> Since the outermost aborts, all of them do.
>> 
> 
> This the same same as saying the when everyone in
> a foot race is in single file and 15 feet behind
> the one in front of them that everyone will come
> in first place. No you are wrong.

That "first place" is not in "the same" but your own lie.
In a turthful paraphrase there would be "to the fininsh line"
or something like that instead.

-- 
Mikko